Politics, Gender and Conceptual Metaphors pp 184-206 | Cite as
Conceptual Metaphors of Family in Political Debates in the USA
Abstract
‘Family’ is an important part of any campaign for office in the United States, and candidates for office can expect discourse surrounding the campaign and their term in office to include mention of their own family. In addition, policies affecting the family and views on the nature of family are also central to political ideology. See, for example, Lakoff (2002) and Cienki (2005). In the campaign process, debate-type events are part of the canonical campaign landscape in the United States, forming an important part of what the voting public uses for evaluating candidates. Candidates participating in these debates make numerous references to their own families and to families in general. This study will compare conceptual metaphors associated with reference to the candidates’ own family members and consider possible differences in usage related to office, political party and gender.
Keywords
Nuclear Family Female Candidate Conceptual Metaphor Congressional District Male CandidatePreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
- Adams, K. L. 2008. ‘Talking about Families to Create Winning Identities’, in L. Dam, L-L. Holmgreen and J. Strunck (eds) Rhetorical Aspects of Discourses in Present-Day Society. Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Press, 10–30.Google Scholar
- Balz, D. and S. Murray. 2008. ‘Dems Clash Bitterly at S.C. Debate’. The Arizona Republic, 22 January 2008. Washington Post, A4.Google Scholar
- Barone, M. and G. Ujifusa. 1997. The Almanac of American Politics 1998. Washington, DC: National Journal, Inc.Google Scholar
- Center for American Women and Politics (CAWP). 2008. Fast Facts. http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/fast_facts/index.php, Eagleton Institute of Politics at Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, date accessed 8 August 2008.Google Scholar
- Charteris-Black, J. 2004. Corpus Approaches to Critical Metaphor Analysis. Basingstoke, Hampshire, UK and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Cienki, A. 2005. ‘Metaphor in the “Strict Father” and “Nurturant Parent” Cognitive Models: Theoretical Issues Raised in an Empirical Study’. Cognitive Linguistics, 16 (2): 279–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Dailey, W. O., E. A. Hinck and S. S. Hinck. 2008. Politeness in Presidential Debates. Lanham, Md: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.Google Scholar
- DeRosa, K. L. and D. G. Bystrom. 1996. ‘The Voice of and for Women in the 1996 Presidential Campaign: Style and Substance of Convention Speeches’, in L. L. Kaid and D. G. Bystrom (eds) The Electronic Election: Perspectives on the 1996 Campaign Communication. Mahwah, NJ; London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, 97–111.Google Scholar
- Fox, R. L. 1997. Gender Dynamics in Congressional Elections. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications Inc.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Jamieson, K. H. 1992. Packaging the Presidency, 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford UP.Google Scholar
- Kaid, L. L. and A. Johnston. 2001. Videostyle in Presidential Campaigns. Westport, Conn.: Praeger.Google Scholar
- Lakoff, G. 2002. Moral Politics. Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Martin, M. 2001. The Almanac of Women and Minorities in American Politics 2002. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press.Google Scholar
- Martin, M. ‘Obama Calls Criticism of Wife “Infuriating”’. 2008. The Arizona Republic, 18 July, A10.Google Scholar
- Zoonen, L. van. 2000. ‘Broken Hearts, Broken Dreams? Politicians and Their Families in Popular Culture’, in A. Sreberny and L. van Zoonen (eds) Gender, Politics and Communication. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, 101–20.Google Scholar